Response: Caraballo

Response

Mail Stop 24
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Inventor’s Assistance Program
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450

Re:  Reply to Complaint for Fernando Caraballo dated 04/14/09, published March 2010

Dear Sir or Madam:

This letter is to address the complaints raised by Fernando Caraballo against Davison, Design and Development, Inc. (Davison).  We at Davison take pride in our work and endeavor to provide our clients with the highest level of service.  As such, any concerns expressed by our clients are taken seriously and we will work to resolve any justifiable conflict.  In his complaint, Mr. Caraballo alleges that Davison offered services which were not performed.  As will be detailed below, his claims are without support.

On or about August 22, 2006, Mr. Caraballo entered into a written contract for services with Davison for the development of his idea into a product sample.  Over the course of the next sixteen months, Mr. Caraballo made periodic payments for the contracted services. The services were completed on or about January 4, 2008. On that date, Mr. Caraballo, in writing, explicitly approved the design of the product sample and completed a questionnaire in which he provided nothing but positive feedback.  His product was presented to an agreed upon colporation, who regrettably declined to license his product.  Again, on or about July 18, 2008 Mr. Cabarallo completed another questionnaire and again had only positive feedback.

On or about October 07,2008, Mr. Caraballo was contacted to approve presentation materials for another potential corporation. On or about October 13, 2008, Davison received a letter from Mr.Caraballo's attorney, alleging that Davison had not provided the services for which Mr. Caraballo had contracted.  Davison replied to Mr. Caraballo's attorney on or about October 17, 2008, setting forth the status of the product development and the specific services for which he contracted with Davison. On or about November 12, 2008, Mr. Caraballo's attorney contacted Davison to indicate they were not retained to pursue the matter.  Davison continued to work with Mr. Caraballo to resolve any conflict in an amicable fashion.  The final contact with Mr. Caraballo was on or about February 11, 2009.

Finally, Mr. Caraballo's reference to the FTC case involving Davison is completely without merit.  That case was initiated in 1996.  In August 2006, when Mr. Caraballo first contacted Davison, Davison was, and has continued to be, in complete compliance with all requirements of the Court and the FTC.  Thus, reference to the case as a basis for a complaint is unfounded.

Records documenting the details referenced in this response are available.  In summary, Mr. Caraballo contracted  for specific services which were performed to his satisfaction.  Davison's conduct in the handling of his situation on was prompt, respectful and professional.

Sincerely,

 

/s/ Frank Vescio                                                            /s/ David M. DeMay

President                                                                       Patent Counsel

Davison Design and Development, Inc.                   Davison Design and Development, Inc.